Minus the fact that this library exists and people like Navalny (while they maybe eventually get disappeared) can openly protest for more than a decade.
Bro was jailed for most of the past decade before they murdered him. And that was only because he was too high profile to kill in the moment until they got complete control again like they do now. It was a long slow 20 years of back tracking to get to today.
You mean like Navalny who was free to protest (aka has been arrested, poisoned, his brother arrested and he eventually died in prison).
Then yes, everyone is free to do that in russia.
Not right away. He protested for years and was even able to leave the country for a time. In 1984 he would've been shot before he could've so much as expressed a dissenting thought.
Sure. There's still a pretty big difference between a state where public demonstration is illegal and a state where thought crimes are punishable by death.
It’s not needed (yet) in russia as putin and company realized that they can go easy and pretend that there is some kind of democracy.
A similar thing happened in USSR when protesters were put in mental institutions as it’s obvious only a crazy person can protest against such a great country.
It’s a similar thing going on in russia- if/when someone becomes too annoying or dangerous they get removed.
It happened multiple times and the methods become harsher - first they try to get you a small sentence, beat you up to shut up, etc.
Then they try to get you out of the country.
Then they put you in jail for a while if they can.
Then they kill you. It happened multiple times to multiple politicians or activists.
Since 2014, holding a demonstration without the permission of authorities, even a peaceful single-person picket, is punishable by a fine or detention of up to 15 days, or up to five years in prison if it is the third breach.
Russia’s war censorship laws, introduced in March 2022, criminalized criticism of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, and of war crimes committed by Russian forces, as “fakes” and “discreditation” of the Russian Armed Forces (Articles 207.3 and 280.3 of the Criminal Code), carrying a maximum sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment.
But you can still think those things, or say them to your neighbor, no? I’ve already said there are similarities, but it’s not fully 1984-ized, or anything close.
That’s ridiculous- if the only place that is safe for you to disagree with or criticize your government is inside your own thoughts, you have no right to protest. In fact, you’re living under total control of your authoritarian government. With AI on the rise, soon, even your thoughts won’t be safe.
The wiki article doesn't indicate that you don't a right to dissent, just to public demonstration or protest. If I can still discuss my disagreement with the government with my neighbor or in private, *it's not like 1984.*
I'm just saying the article is overdramatizing the reality. That's it. If you can read that article and somehow entirely agree with it, you either didn't read 1984 or you're incapable of critical thought. That's it.
There is a qualitative difference between Navalny's experience and the experience of the 1984 protagonist, is there not? Whether it's the length of time before the disappearance, or a higher burden of proof, or the level to which dissent is allowed to rise, it's very clear there is some difference. For instance, again, the government of Oceania certainly wouldn't have allowed a library full of novels expressing ideas that threaten the state's monopoly on thought.
Well he wrote it about all authoritarian regimes of his age that he was acquainted with. The Soviet Union was just one facet. He was a Left Libertarian who hated authoritarians regardless of their origin.
He wasn't a libertarian, he was a socialist. Maybe an anarcho-socialist. Most likely a democratic socialist. He specifically expressed a belief in socialism in 1937.
What do you consider a Left Libertarian? As far as I can see his most significant work was written when he was an Independent Labour Party member and called himself a Democratic Socialist.
He sided with Spnish anarchists pretty hard and his critique of authoritanism was taken from some anarchist political writers - namely I totally saw Bakunins influence on his work. I would say he downplayed his political stance mostly to not be outcast by society or alienate the reader base.
He was part of the war time propaganda machine forced to write positive stuff about a great ally, Soviet Union who was oppressing their people even back then. Western countries with their colonies or segregation were not exactly great democracies yet.
So if you read [this piece](https://www.telelib.com/authors/O/OrwellGeorge/essay/tribune/AsIPlease19440901.html) where he says "What I am concerned with is the attitude of the British intelligentsia, who cannot raise between them one single voice to question what they believe to be Russian policy, no matter what turn it takes", calls the attitude of the whole (!) British press to Soviet policy "slavish" and so on, in September 1944, I assume that is not a historical fact? Or his well-documented and long-standing outspoken criticism of Stalin (*and* Trotsky, which was rare in his circles at the time)?
Or you can, by finally showing me a shred of evidence that he propagandized in favor of the Soviets, something I haven't seen you do yet, if it is so easy. I would point out the timeframe also makes no sense considering the war started before that and definitely continued into 1944, but I suspect that's equally useless.
He was left wing, but that being said, all three superpowers in 1984 who were at peace with each other are socialist states, not right wing ones at all.
Tankies? I am not Russian lmao nor do I support Russia. I just also don't support other countries doing the same shit under the guise of democracy.
I read the book multiple times, my favorite book in fact. It was inspired by the USSR but was it the only thing that he used as inspiration?
> Tankies? I am not Russian lmao nor do I support Russia.
That's not what a tankie is...
>It was inspired by the USSR but was it the only thing that he used as inspiration?
Now probably impossible to say with 100% but considering his other works and especially his preface of Animal Farm where he complains how hard it is to publish anything anti-russian in Britain due to self-censorship we can say with utmost certainty that yes - it was.
What even is a "Left" libertarian?
Hell, nevermind, what makes you call him a libertarian to begin with? It's insulting to the dude's intelligence and maturity.
Huh, TIL people make a difference between capital-focused and social-focused libertarianism.
Not sure how an absense of regulation beyond a NAP can amount to any societal difference beyond the short term of a couple weeks, but that's neither here nor there.
Left-libertarians support a strong government that is built from the ground up with measures in place that force that government to be completely under the will and influence of the people, and that can be easily taken out if they go against the will of the people. It tends to support federalization, but with local governments having much more power and ability to hold the broader governments accountable for their actions.
He was heavily influenced by British wartime propaganda as well, and his experience fighting both fascists and totalitarian communists in the Spanish civil war.
Especially East Germany when you read about the Stasi since there's alot of similarities....That Putin himself happened to be apart of so nothing has really changed really.
> 'Russia now is like 1984'
Well, Russia has been like that for at least 100 years. Orwell published the book in 1949 and based it on Stalinism after all. Only wishful believers thought it ever changed.
That's the period where it *could* have turned around, used the massive investments that were pouring in to modernize it's infrastructure and build a real economy for it's people. But that's also when the former KGB joined forces with the mafia to embezzle everything and solidify a system based on violence, bribes and power plays. So no, in practice it went from bad to worse. And so most of the russian territories are still stuck between the middle ages and the industrial revolution.
This period?
* 1990-1992 [Transnistria War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnistria_War)
* 1991-1993 [Georgian Civil War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian_Civil_War)
* 1991-1992 [First South Ossetia War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991%E2%80%931992_South_Ossetia_War)
* 1992-1993 [War in Abkhazia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Abkhazia_(1992%E2%80%931993\))
* 1992-1997 [Tajikistani Civil War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tajikistani_Civil_War)
* 1994-1996 [First Chechen War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Chechen_War)
* 1999-2009 [Second Chechen War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War)
* 2008 [Russo-Georgian War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War)
* 2014-present [Russo-Ukrainian War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War)
The first 6 on that list were prior to Putin. Read [this exchange between Yeltsin and Clinton from 1999 and reconsider whether Russia ever stopped being Russia.](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2F8v0f3k17e0bc1.jpeg)
Yeah, even before the revolution there was a Tzar's secret police Охранное отделение, people were sent to prison camps in Siberia for the smallest disobedience, they would even fake the news and history (IIrc Peter the Great started doing it in 1701).
The technology and structure of power has changed, but the methods didn't.
You really don't know much about the Russian Empire then. This is way older than the Soviet Union. In fact, the Soviets borrowed a whole lot of ideas from their predecessors, like gulags, secret police, murdering minorities as scapegoats, forcing the displacement of ethnic groups to prevent possible rebellion, shooting civilians protesting, and so on.
> at least
>> You really don't know much about the Russian Empire then. This is way older than the Soviet Union.
Not sure how you are failing at such basic reading comprehension.
This is obviously a valid comparison here but generally I’m so tired of “X country is like 1984”. Yes it may be true in this case (the book is essentially based on the USSR) but for the love of god *read another book*. Every time the government gets involved in ANYTHING everyone screams “1984!!!” about their own country. I’ve met people who only have 1984 as their source for any argument. It became the bible of anti-establishment in functional democracies, when it actually was trying to show us a much worse reality which is what we see in Russia.
You can say it’s a warning about what we could become, but really in my experience people usually believe they already live in 1984 in their liberal western democracy of choice. Maybe now that we have a real example close to home we’ll appreciate how good we really have it.
Most of those screamers havent read the book, there are only two governments in the world on such an extreme level, and that is Eritrea and North Korea
Do you all think that these dictators from NK, Eritrea or Turkmenistan sometimes read a book like 1984 and go "woah, that's a good idea, we need to implement that here"
Its sad to see the lost opportunity cost in The Russian Federation. Imagine if 30 years ago Russians went for butter over guns, and remembered how to have kids, say with a TFR of 2.2. Imagine Russia focusing on peaceful economic development with a healthy demography, they could have been what Wilhelm II feared - a kind of "Eurasian Peril" - but in an economic sense. They had the living space to become a 20 trillion dollar GDP powerhouse.
But no, they chose this path. Its devastating to see play out in real time.
This is all they know since forever. Always need to be ruled by some brutal leaders that "protect" them. Whether its the mongols, or the tsars, or eventually the communists....history just repeats itself for Russia.
There was also the Novgorod Republic, there was Duma in the beginning of the 20th century - some aspects of democracy are present in Russia's history. I wouldn't perpetuate the notion that it is altogether foreign to Russia. The present day Russia is a very sad place, though.
Russia has literally never been anything else. For it to be a country you describe it has to stop being Russia and become something else. They'd need to drop imperialism and with that, the whole concept of Russia is under question. Do not have any hopes for tens of years, likely hundreds.
Dropping imperialism is one thing, but how is the concept of Russia under question then? Every time I see sentiments like these, I swear, it's like people think there are no ethnic Russians living east of Moscow for some reason. I say this as someone living in Western Siberia. I'm pretty sure the mood is the same in someplace like Vladivostok. What are we to be called if not Russia?
"Do not have hopes for hundreds of years", what a silly belief
That's precisely the concept of russia that needs to change - you basically parrot Putin's lines by saying "there are ethnic russians in Chechnya and Tuva, of course they should be ruled from Moscow".
Oh, I remember your username, we argued before.
> you basically parrot Putin's lines by saying "there are ethnic russians in Chechnya and Tuva, of course they should be ruled from Moscow".
Except that...is not the case. Those aren't the arguments used in regards to Chechnya (like 95% Chechen I think?) and Tuva (about 90% Tuvan). *And I wasn't talking about them anyway?* "You parrot Putin's lines", and then you strawman it through.
Right, I am sure you and the other ethnic russians are perfectly fine with Tuva and Chechnya peacefully leaving the russian federation, and your idea of russia has no component of imperialism and domination \s
Who are you kidding - russians are fine with >>conquering<< neighboring countries cause that's their idea of what russia is and does. And that has to change
Aaaaand now you're *making up* **my** beliefs on the fly to justify your point about how we're all imperialists who only ever want to conquer people or whatever. Without addressing my prior point at that.
It's funny, you say I'm the one repeating Putin's lines yet you behave *the same way* as a Kremlin farm bot would.
Ah so you are pro dissolution of the Russian empire after all. Great to hear, apologies for mischaracterising you. Or if I am not getting it right, please clearly state your policy on Chechen independence.
You are a russian in russia who pays taxes and goes on the internet to defend the russian imperial project. I regularly donate to the UAF and try and make sure noone is fooled by all the good russians on this site that e.g Navalny is not just a distraction. I think you are the Kremlin bot.
They envy the power that the US has, but they could have been the United States of Eurasia themselves with all the land and resources that they have.
They wouldn't ever need to attack even a single neighbor if they used soft power instead of might, but no, they chose to be stuck in the 19th century.
This. They have all the means to be a superpower, or at the very least a major regional power that can exert influence in Europe and Asia. But Russian leadership has always been good at sabotaging themselves and as a consequence any progress.
>They envy the power that the US has, but they could have been the United States of Eurasia themselves with all the land and resources that they have.
>
>They wouldn't ever need to attack even a single neighbor if they used soft power instead of might, but no, they chose to be stuck in the 19th century.
You do realize using the US as an example of applying soft power instead of might is a bad one?
The US has been the worst offender in the past decades when it comes to waging illegal wars. It's might makes right all in. The after effects of the 9/11 illegal wars alone killed over 4 million.
Yes. I added a second paragraph later on. I didn't have particularly the US in mind as an example of the perfect case of soft power use.
Although the US does project its soft power successfully through the import of its culture globally.
>They envy the power that the US has, but they could have been the United States of Eurasia themselves with all the land and resources that they have.
No. Resource curse.
And huge territory (mostly inhabitable or sparsely populated) is actually a big economical disadvantage.
>No. Resource curse.
I doubt whether the resource curse is even a real thing. What i do know however is that corruption is the real deal.
>
And huge territory (mostly inhabitable or sparsely populated) is actually a big economical disadvantage.
Global warming wants to have a word with you. No, but in all honesty, i don't think that sparsely populated area is the worst problem that Russia has.
>Global warming wants to have a word with you
Maybe it will matter 50 years later, but we are talking about last 30 years. Huge territorry = logistical issues. And heating and other issues (60% of russian land is Siberia and North).
Resource course has been scientifically recognised term for a while.
>Maybe it will matter 50 years later, but we are talking about last 30 years. Huge territorry = logistical issues. And heating and other issues (60% of russian land is Siberia and North).
I tend to look at the big picture and ignore details. Most of Russia's population lives in the European side of Russia anyway.
>Resource course has been scientifically recognised term for a while.
Alright, ChatGPT seems to back you up on this one.
> they could have been what Wilhelm II feared - a kind of "Eurasian Peril"
Well, they have been a peril indeed.
Russian Federation inherited from USSR strongmen (KGB) in power. It could never become anything else, especially taking into account resource course.
Russia had a bad luck of USSR collapsing just as neoliberalism was making it's victory lap in the west resulting in the idiotic "shock therapy" approach making bad situation worse.
Highly reccomend this documentary
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/p0d3hwl1/russia-19851999-traumazone](https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/p0d3hwl1/russia-19851999-traumazone)
it wasn't exactly a great policy, but still the combo of yeltsins alcohol fueled incompetence and then the handover to putin, who only helped exasperate the problems by institutionalising the worst aspects of them, did the job i would say.
regardless, it never was anyones but russias responsibility to clean house and equaly their failure to do so.
Didn’t lose enough. What they lose were the colonisers from other USSR territories. They absolutely didn’t belong there and majority of the time were forcefully imported there.
But this is clearly a Russian biased talking point. Nobody serious is actually even entertaining this.
It is exactly like 1984 or 1960 in russian years/history. If you disagree with what the state says - you get locked up for years in a jail. Or in a psych ward. Given the speech puting made lately "everybody must contribute to our victory" - gulag is not that far away.
I am russian. Was born and raised in ussr. What I see now is ussr ver 2 sans communism. Although I live abroad for years - this is how I see it. I wont go down an evidence path. Google can demonstrate evidence better that I could ever do.
In 1984 Russia was the farthest away from being like 1984 in all of modern Russian history. Which is part of the reason the USSR collapsed not a decade after.
The issue is that changes they wanted were western luxuries and goods, not human rights and freedom. Russians never cared about that. They wanted to be like West only in terms of being rich and powerful.
Yes, because they were the only counterbalance to a de-facto dictatorship that thought forming a capitalist stratum was more important than democracy. Both side were offered a "tabula rasa" solution: snap presidential and parliamentary elections. The parliament accepted. The president brought in the tanks.
Not really. This is the kind of thinking that is still prevalent today. "Do you understand that if Putin lets Russians elect their own leaders they will immediately elect a literal fascist?" Good job, everyone, "the only European" didn't need anyone's help to turn the country into a warmongering shithole.
1984 is Sci-fi. Which is starting to be possible. Previous regimes (Stalin, Mao, etc) was just brutal and unsustainable.
"Beauty" of regime in 1984 is that that regime was sustainable. Not by brutality, but total control. People just don't rebel. And they can found any rebellious people early.
Russia is hopeless cause. They blew their chance to become something better 30 years ago.
We can only try our best to protect our people and countries from it.
10 in the audience, one speaker and the librarian. A dozen vs the mass of 144 million ignorant Russians.
I suppose “even the smallest acorn grows into the mightiest oak”. Good luck guys.
It is actually very strange observing the changes over the years. People here are commenting how Russia's basically always been like 1984, and yet to me there's still feels like a world of difference between now and, say, 2012. Even 2021 feels like a more decent time compared to now, and that was pretty shitty already
As a guy who lives in Ukraine where everyday men being abducted by force by recruiters and police so they can be mobilized, where there is full indoctrination by media to go to die in trenches without any gains, while our politicians keep being corrupted af, when all men 18-60 can’t leave this country so a lot trying to escape by mountains and by crossing rivers (occasionally dying), and cause of corruption borders of Kharkiv was basically non existent while borders with Europe is protected heavily, cause it seems politicians scared of dodgers more than russians. All that while russian men at least can move abroad and not be scared to leave their house I would say that we are more in 1984 than even ruzzia now, sadly. But yeah, western media do not show our mistakes and abuse of human rights, only when ruzzia do this. So keep living in illusions while my country is being more authoritarian day by day.
Wack justification of human rights abuse, constitution abuse, and omnipresent corruption. Ukraine or russia, for me, if country is authoritarian and not respect my rights then it’s a shit country.
“No dumb bastard ever won a war by going out and dying for his country. He won it by making some other dumb bastard die for his country.” General Patton. You are fighting the invader not for the government or the oligarchs, you are fighting for your family and the people you love. Ukraine did not choose this war.
Lol, even your quote suggests that those who dies for countries are idiots, and I agree with that. Thank you for such a motivating speech but I would refuse this honor and would rather emigrate. Maybe someday you will have your chance to fight for your country though. Plus if somebody really cares about family he better find a way to move to a safe place instead of die a stupid death and leave your family without a man. Practicality over stupid cult of “heroism” and big but empty wotds.
As I said, I don’t care anymore, I despise any authoritarian country, the fact that I was born in Ukraine doesn’t mean I will allow it to treat me like a cattle without free will.
I read the headline and thought "1984", do they mean the year or the book ? both of thesre things are mainly true. Outside of the big cities its definitely at best 1984.
1984 is written so generically that people can compare it to every shitty regime, check out this reply as a good example of that: [https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1d7hd0e/comment/l6ziged/](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1d7hd0e/comment/l6ziged/)
I said it's written too generically, I didn't say anything about what Orwell meant, I said something about the result he achieved.
Admittedly, I'm no fan of his, read both "1984" and "Down And Out" and you could sense the shitty preachiness in both.
Is it? A dumbed down population invaded by mass propaganda coming from all sides turned into nothing but consumers, controled and being slowly killed by corporations. Its not 1984, its worse.
As dumb as average American is - they are geniuses compared to average Russians. Russia got freedom on a plater delivered several times and each time they have choosen terror and slavery over that.
It takes a very special kind of culture to allow themselves to be herded so easily.
Yes because the usa isn't known for murderingaround the world, either via war, cia meddling or sanctions to destroy the economy (not talking about russia).
Putin is a piece of shit, but america is no better.
Yes because the usa isn't known for murderingaround the world, either via war, cia meddling or sanctions to destroy the economy (not talking about russia).
Putin is a piece of shit, but america is no better.
You clearly havent read capitalism realism, manufacturing consent or one dimensional man, have you?
If you read mark fischer, chomsky or marcuse they'll tell you that doesnt mean there isn't a form of censorship in the usa, its just not by force but thru even more insidious brainwashing.
Stop! Just stop with this nonsense! It’s not even close.. the people have a choice whether they buy into the bullshit here, in Russia the people are being force-fed the bullshit under literal threat of imprisonment and what makes it worse, they have to be vocal that the bullshit tastes like honey.
Always amazed by the 13 year old edgy teenager worthy pseudo-intellectual points made by tankies lol. Marcuse or Fischer names should not even come out of y’all mouths, you do not understand neither of those
Twitter is corporation not owned by government, that would be like getting thrown out of a bar because you’re acting like a dick.. which is why they did it! Now try banning Putin in Russia from something, see how well that goes.
Literally 1984
Minus the fact that this library exists and people like Navalny (while they maybe eventually get disappeared) can openly protest for more than a decade.
Bro was jailed for most of the past decade before they murdered him. And that was only because he was too high profile to kill in the moment until they got complete control again like they do now. It was a long slow 20 years of back tracking to get to today.
So it wasn't like 1984, but now it is? Anyone who so much as has a dissenting thought is taken to a back room and executed?
Really? People in Russia can protest today?
Without being disappeared and dying (edit: right away) like in 1984? Yes.
You mean like Navalny who was free to protest (aka has been arrested, poisoned, his brother arrested and he eventually died in prison). Then yes, everyone is free to do that in russia.
Not right away. He protested for years and was even able to leave the country for a time. In 1984 he would've been shot before he could've so much as expressed a dissenting thought.
Yeah, it took putin some time to make a country a Nazi regime. Now people holding a blank paper get arrested.
Sure. There's still a pretty big difference between a state where public demonstration is illegal and a state where thought crimes are punishable by death.
It’s not needed (yet) in russia as putin and company realized that they can go easy and pretend that there is some kind of democracy. A similar thing happened in USSR when protesters were put in mental institutions as it’s obvious only a crazy person can protest against such a great country. It’s a similar thing going on in russia- if/when someone becomes too annoying or dangerous they get removed. It happened multiple times and the methods become harsher - first they try to get you a small sentence, beat you up to shut up, etc. Then they try to get you out of the country. Then they put you in jail for a while if they can. Then they kill you. It happened multiple times to multiple politicians or activists.
In 1984 they just kill you.
Tell me what happened to him?
Since 2014, holding a demonstration without the permission of authorities, even a peaceful single-person picket, is punishable by a fine or detention of up to 15 days, or up to five years in prison if it is the third breach. Russia’s war censorship laws, introduced in March 2022, criminalized criticism of Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, and of war crimes committed by Russian forces, as “fakes” and “discreditation” of the Russian Armed Forces (Articles 207.3 and 280.3 of the Criminal Code), carrying a maximum sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment.
But you can still think those things, or say them to your neighbor, no? I’ve already said there are similarities, but it’s not fully 1984-ized, or anything close.
That’s ridiculous- if the only place that is safe for you to disagree with or criticize your government is inside your own thoughts, you have no right to protest. In fact, you’re living under total control of your authoritarian government. With AI on the rise, soon, even your thoughts won’t be safe.
The wiki article doesn't indicate that you don't a right to dissent, just to public demonstration or protest. If I can still discuss my disagreement with the government with my neighbor or in private, *it's not like 1984.*
Government: be grateful you can still think Your position: look at all the freedom I have
I'm just saying the article is overdramatizing the reality. That's it. If you can read that article and somehow entirely agree with it, you either didn't read 1984 or you're incapable of critical thought. That's it.
They can openly protest except they disappear. Maybe rethink the logic of what you wrote;)
There is a qualitative difference between Navalny's experience and the experience of the 1984 protagonist, is there not? Whether it's the length of time before the disappearance, or a higher burden of proof, or the level to which dissent is allowed to rise, it's very clear there is some difference. For instance, again, the government of Oceania certainly wouldn't have allowed a library full of novels expressing ideas that threaten the state's monopoly on thought.
[удалено]
Well he wrote it about all authoritarian regimes of his age that he was acquainted with. The Soviet Union was just one facet. He was a Left Libertarian who hated authoritarians regardless of their origin.
He wasn't a libertarian, he was a socialist. Maybe an anarcho-socialist. Most likely a democratic socialist. He specifically expressed a belief in socialism in 1937.
What do you consider a Left Libertarian? As far as I can see his most significant work was written when he was an Independent Labour Party member and called himself a Democratic Socialist.
He sided with Spnish anarchists pretty hard and his critique of authoritanism was taken from some anarchist political writers - namely I totally saw Bakunins influence on his work. I would say he downplayed his political stance mostly to not be outcast by society or alienate the reader base.
He was part of the war time propaganda machine forced to write positive stuff about a great ally, Soviet Union who was oppressing their people even back then. Western countries with their colonies or segregation were not exactly great democracies yet.
... where did you get these *fascinating* ideas?
Historical facts.
So if you read [this piece](https://www.telelib.com/authors/O/OrwellGeorge/essay/tribune/AsIPlease19440901.html) where he says "What I am concerned with is the attitude of the British intelligentsia, who cannot raise between them one single voice to question what they believe to be Russian policy, no matter what turn it takes", calls the attitude of the whole (!) British press to Soviet policy "slavish" and so on, in September 1944, I assume that is not a historical fact? Or his well-documented and long-standing outspoken criticism of Stalin (*and* Trotsky, which was rare in his circles at the time)?
September 1944 might be after after he worked doing propaganda 1941-1943. You can fix you arrogant ignorance.
Or you can, by finally showing me a shred of evidence that he propagandized in favor of the Soviets, something I haven't seen you do yet, if it is so easy. I would point out the timeframe also makes no sense considering the war started before that and definitely continued into 1944, but I suspect that's equally useless.
So you cant even google Orwell :D Ignorance is bliss.
He was left wing, but that being said, all three superpowers in 1984 who were at peace with each other are socialist states, not right wing ones at all.
Noes! Only one is bad! The one I have chosen!
Orwell himself wrote that the book is about Soviet Union. Man tankies really are against reading books.
Tankies? I am not Russian lmao nor do I support Russia. I just also don't support other countries doing the same shit under the guise of democracy. I read the book multiple times, my favorite book in fact. It was inspired by the USSR but was it the only thing that he used as inspiration?
Most of the time tankies are people who advocating for communism/socialism but have never been living under such regimes themselves.
How am I advocating for anything saying that multiple entities are doing bad shit around the world?
> Tankies? I am not Russian lmao nor do I support Russia. That's not what a tankie is... >It was inspired by the USSR but was it the only thing that he used as inspiration? Now probably impossible to say with 100% but considering his other works and especially his preface of Animal Farm where he complains how hard it is to publish anything anti-russian in Britain due to self-censorship we can say with utmost certainty that yes - it was.
> we can say with utmost certainty that yes - it was. lol
What even is a "Left" libertarian? Hell, nevermind, what makes you call him a libertarian to begin with? It's insulting to the dude's intelligence and maturity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism
Huh, TIL people make a difference between capital-focused and social-focused libertarianism. Not sure how an absense of regulation beyond a NAP can amount to any societal difference beyond the short term of a couple weeks, but that's neither here nor there.
Left-libertarians support a strong government that is built from the ground up with measures in place that force that government to be completely under the will and influence of the people, and that can be easily taken out if they go against the will of the people. It tends to support federalization, but with local governments having much more power and ability to hold the broader governments accountable for their actions.
Noes! Only one is bad! The one I have chosen!
Noes! Only one is bad! The one I have chosen!
Noes! Only one is bad! The I have chosen!
GDR especially
He was heavily influenced by British wartime propaganda as well, and his experience fighting both fascists and totalitarian communists in the Spanish civil war.
Especially East Germany when you read about the Stasi since there's alot of similarities....That Putin himself happened to be apart of so nothing has really changed really.
I would argue that current day russia is more like 1922 anyways.
> 'Russia now is like 1984' Well, Russia has been like that for at least 100 years. Orwell published the book in 1949 and based it on Stalinism after all. Only wishful believers thought it ever changed.
I actually think it changed for about 10 years, somewhere in between soviet and putin
That's the period where it *could* have turned around, used the massive investments that were pouring in to modernize it's infrastructure and build a real economy for it's people. But that's also when the former KGB joined forces with the mafia to embezzle everything and solidify a system based on violence, bribes and power plays. So no, in practice it went from bad to worse. And so most of the russian territories are still stuck between the middle ages and the industrial revolution.
Everyone needs to watch [TraumaZone](https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/p0d3hwl1/russia-19851999-traumazone)
This period? * 1990-1992 [Transnistria War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnistria_War) * 1991-1993 [Georgian Civil War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian_Civil_War) * 1991-1992 [First South Ossetia War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991%E2%80%931992_South_Ossetia_War) * 1992-1993 [War in Abkhazia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Abkhazia_(1992%E2%80%931993\)) * 1992-1997 [Tajikistani Civil War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tajikistani_Civil_War) * 1994-1996 [First Chechen War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Chechen_War) * 1999-2009 [Second Chechen War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War) * 2008 [Russo-Georgian War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War) * 2014-present [Russo-Ukrainian War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War) The first 6 on that list were prior to Putin. Read [this exchange between Yeltsin and Clinton from 1999 and reconsider whether Russia ever stopped being Russia.](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2F8v0f3k17e0bc1.jpeg)
Transnistria, Chechnya, Dagestan, Abkhazia, some civil wars. Yeah... No.
Not really, just for a brief period in 1992 until the 1993 Russian constitutional crisis. russians really, really hate democracy.
More like 1000 years. Russia did not change it's politics and social structure significantly since mongol rule.
Yeah, even before the revolution there was a Tzar's secret police Охранное отделение, people were sent to prison camps in Siberia for the smallest disobedience, they would even fake the news and history (IIrc Peter the Great started doing it in 1701). The technology and structure of power has changed, but the methods didn't.
It did change! It went from being Animal Farm to 1984.
You really don't know much about the Russian Empire then. This is way older than the Soviet Union. In fact, the Soviets borrowed a whole lot of ideas from their predecessors, like gulags, secret police, murdering minorities as scapegoats, forcing the displacement of ethnic groups to prevent possible rebellion, shooting civilians protesting, and so on.
> at least >> You really don't know much about the Russian Empire then. This is way older than the Soviet Union. Not sure how you are failing at such basic reading comprehension.
Longer than that
it is like that everywhere now
The fact that this library exists at all is indication that Russia is not in fact like 1984. Maybe in some limited ways, sure.
The fact that this library exists at all is eveidence that Russia is not in fact like 1984.
This is obviously a valid comparison here but generally I’m so tired of “X country is like 1984”. Yes it may be true in this case (the book is essentially based on the USSR) but for the love of god *read another book*. Every time the government gets involved in ANYTHING everyone screams “1984!!!” about their own country. I’ve met people who only have 1984 as their source for any argument. It became the bible of anti-establishment in functional democracies, when it actually was trying to show us a much worse reality which is what we see in Russia. You can say it’s a warning about what we could become, but really in my experience people usually believe they already live in 1984 in their liberal western democracy of choice. Maybe now that we have a real example close to home we’ll appreciate how good we really have it.
Most of those screamers havent read the book, there are only two governments in the world on such an extreme level, and that is Eritrea and North Korea
What is Turkmenistan lacking for it?
Do you all think that these dictators from NK, Eritrea or Turkmenistan sometimes read a book like 1984 and go "woah, that's a good idea, we need to implement that here"
They thought it was a guide book
And Russia now.
Agreed!
animal farm is a nice alternative. Why not just wish for some soma & sex ala Brave New world
Its sad to see the lost opportunity cost in The Russian Federation. Imagine if 30 years ago Russians went for butter over guns, and remembered how to have kids, say with a TFR of 2.2. Imagine Russia focusing on peaceful economic development with a healthy demography, they could have been what Wilhelm II feared - a kind of "Eurasian Peril" - but in an economic sense. They had the living space to become a 20 trillion dollar GDP powerhouse. But no, they chose this path. Its devastating to see play out in real time.
This is all they know since forever. Always need to be ruled by some brutal leaders that "protect" them. Whether its the mongols, or the tsars, or eventually the communists....history just repeats itself for Russia.
There was also the Novgorod Republic, there was Duma in the beginning of the 20th century - some aspects of democracy are present in Russia's history. I wouldn't perpetuate the notion that it is altogether foreign to Russia. The present day Russia is a very sad place, though.
And such democracies attempts have always been weak (Novgorod lost because it did not have good army), despised by Russians and overthrown eventually.
Russia has literally never been anything else. For it to be a country you describe it has to stop being Russia and become something else. They'd need to drop imperialism and with that, the whole concept of Russia is under question. Do not have any hopes for tens of years, likely hundreds.
Dropping imperialism is one thing, but how is the concept of Russia under question then? Every time I see sentiments like these, I swear, it's like people think there are no ethnic Russians living east of Moscow for some reason. I say this as someone living in Western Siberia. I'm pretty sure the mood is the same in someplace like Vladivostok. What are we to be called if not Russia? "Do not have hopes for hundreds of years", what a silly belief
That's precisely the concept of russia that needs to change - you basically parrot Putin's lines by saying "there are ethnic russians in Chechnya and Tuva, of course they should be ruled from Moscow".
Oh, I remember your username, we argued before. > you basically parrot Putin's lines by saying "there are ethnic russians in Chechnya and Tuva, of course they should be ruled from Moscow". Except that...is not the case. Those aren't the arguments used in regards to Chechnya (like 95% Chechen I think?) and Tuva (about 90% Tuvan). *And I wasn't talking about them anyway?* "You parrot Putin's lines", and then you strawman it through.
Right, I am sure you and the other ethnic russians are perfectly fine with Tuva and Chechnya peacefully leaving the russian federation, and your idea of russia has no component of imperialism and domination \s Who are you kidding - russians are fine with >>conquering<< neighboring countries cause that's their idea of what russia is and does. And that has to change
Aaaaand now you're *making up* **my** beliefs on the fly to justify your point about how we're all imperialists who only ever want to conquer people or whatever. Without addressing my prior point at that. It's funny, you say I'm the one repeating Putin's lines yet you behave *the same way* as a Kremlin farm bot would.
Ah so you are pro dissolution of the Russian empire after all. Great to hear, apologies for mischaracterising you. Or if I am not getting it right, please clearly state your policy on Chechen independence. You are a russian in russia who pays taxes and goes on the internet to defend the russian imperial project. I regularly donate to the UAF and try and make sure noone is fooled by all the good russians on this site that e.g Navalny is not just a distraction. I think you are the Kremlin bot.
They envy the power that the US has, but they could have been the United States of Eurasia themselves with all the land and resources that they have. They wouldn't ever need to attack even a single neighbor if they used soft power instead of might, but no, they chose to be stuck in the 19th century.
This. They have all the means to be a superpower, or at the very least a major regional power that can exert influence in Europe and Asia. But Russian leadership has always been good at sabotaging themselves and as a consequence any progress.
>They envy the power that the US has, but they could have been the United States of Eurasia themselves with all the land and resources that they have. > >They wouldn't ever need to attack even a single neighbor if they used soft power instead of might, but no, they chose to be stuck in the 19th century. You do realize using the US as an example of applying soft power instead of might is a bad one? The US has been the worst offender in the past decades when it comes to waging illegal wars. It's might makes right all in. The after effects of the 9/11 illegal wars alone killed over 4 million.
Yes. I added a second paragraph later on. I didn't have particularly the US in mind as an example of the perfect case of soft power use. Although the US does project its soft power successfully through the import of its culture globally.
>They envy the power that the US has, but they could have been the United States of Eurasia themselves with all the land and resources that they have. No. Resource curse. And huge territory (mostly inhabitable or sparsely populated) is actually a big economical disadvantage.
>No. Resource curse. I doubt whether the resource curse is even a real thing. What i do know however is that corruption is the real deal. > And huge territory (mostly inhabitable or sparsely populated) is actually a big economical disadvantage. Global warming wants to have a word with you. No, but in all honesty, i don't think that sparsely populated area is the worst problem that Russia has.
>Global warming wants to have a word with you Maybe it will matter 50 years later, but we are talking about last 30 years. Huge territorry = logistical issues. And heating and other issues (60% of russian land is Siberia and North). Resource course has been scientifically recognised term for a while.
>Maybe it will matter 50 years later, but we are talking about last 30 years. Huge territorry = logistical issues. And heating and other issues (60% of russian land is Siberia and North). I tend to look at the big picture and ignore details. Most of Russia's population lives in the European side of Russia anyway. >Resource course has been scientifically recognised term for a while. Alright, ChatGPT seems to back you up on this one.
> they could have been what Wilhelm II feared - a kind of "Eurasian Peril" Well, they have been a peril indeed. Russian Federation inherited from USSR strongmen (KGB) in power. It could never become anything else, especially taking into account resource course.
True
Yes, unfortunately. Here, in Russia we thinking exactly that.
Russia had a bad luck of USSR collapsing just as neoliberalism was making it's victory lap in the west resulting in the idiotic "shock therapy" approach making bad situation worse. Highly reccomend this documentary [https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/p0d3hwl1/russia-19851999-traumazone](https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/p0d3hwl1/russia-19851999-traumazone)
>idiotic "shock therapy" approach making bad situation worse. Why was it successful in the Baltics and Poland?
it wasn't exactly a great policy, but still the combo of yeltsins alcohol fueled incompetence and then the handover to putin, who only helped exasperate the problems by institutionalising the worst aspects of them, did the job i would say. regardless, it never was anyones but russias responsibility to clean house and equaly their failure to do so.
[https://reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/12puo3m/in\_1990s\_shock\_therapy\_policy\_was\_disastrous\_in/](https://new.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/12puo3m/in_1990s_shock_therapy_policy_was_disastrous_in/)
Becasue we sold ourselves to Germans and Americans.
Lithuania lost 30% of population in 30 years, how someone can use words “Baltic” and “success” in one sentence?
Didn’t lose enough. What they lose were the colonisers from other USSR territories. They absolutely didn’t belong there and majority of the time were forcefully imported there. But this is clearly a Russian biased talking point. Nobody serious is actually even entertaining this.
Haha, yet another Reddit expert on politics mixed up Lithuania and Latvia :) Russians were less then 10% of total population of Lithuania
It is exactly like 1984 or 1960 in russian years/history. If you disagree with what the state says - you get locked up for years in a jail. Or in a psych ward. Given the speech puting made lately "everybody must contribute to our victory" - gulag is not that far away.
u av evidence of this yes?
I am russian. Was born and raised in ussr. What I see now is ussr ver 2 sans communism. Although I live abroad for years - this is how I see it. I wont go down an evidence path. Google can demonstrate evidence better that I could ever do.
u can just say no i dont
It's funny because Russia was like 1984 in 1984
In 1984 Russia was the farthest away from being like 1984 in all of modern Russian history. Which is part of the reason the USSR collapsed not a decade after.
Nah, in 1984 people were expecting something to change, since the previous generation of politicians had literally died out.
The issue is that changes they wanted were western luxuries and goods, not human rights and freedom. Russians never cared about that. They wanted to be like West only in terms of being rich and powerful.
Not really. People wanted both. It was Jeljcin who forced Russia to choose.
When oligarches and KGB took power, they did not care and did not protest...
They did, but in 1993 the protest was crushed with literal tanks.
You mean when a bunch of old diehard communist politicians tried to overthrow Yeltsin and restore USSR? Communism was even worse.
Yes, because they were the only counterbalance to a de-facto dictatorship that thought forming a capitalist stratum was more important than democracy. Both side were offered a "tabula rasa" solution: snap presidential and parliamentary elections. The parliament accepted. The president brought in the tanks.
The point is, the only alternative to Yeltsin were communists, and if they took power or won elections, it would have been even worse.
Not really. This is the kind of thinking that is still prevalent today. "Do you understand that if Putin lets Russians elect their own leaders they will immediately elect a literal fascist?" Good job, everyone, "the only European" didn't need anyone's help to turn the country into a warmongering shithole.
In Russia 1984 is Groundhog Year.
1984 is Sci-fi. Which is starting to be possible. Previous regimes (Stalin, Mao, etc) was just brutal and unsustainable. "Beauty" of regime in 1984 is that that regime was sustainable. Not by brutality, but total control. People just don't rebel. And they can found any rebellious people early.
Russia is hopeless cause. They blew their chance to become something better 30 years ago. We can only try our best to protect our people and countries from it.
10 in the audience, one speaker and the librarian. A dozen vs the mass of 144 million ignorant Russians. I suppose “even the smallest acorn grows into the mightiest oak”. Good luck guys.
It is actually very strange observing the changes over the years. People here are commenting how Russia's basically always been like 1984, and yet to me there's still feels like a world of difference between now and, say, 2012. Even 2021 feels like a more decent time compared to now, and that was pretty shitty already
As a guy who lives in Ukraine where everyday men being abducted by force by recruiters and police so they can be mobilized, where there is full indoctrination by media to go to die in trenches without any gains, while our politicians keep being corrupted af, when all men 18-60 can’t leave this country so a lot trying to escape by mountains and by crossing rivers (occasionally dying), and cause of corruption borders of Kharkiv was basically non existent while borders with Europe is protected heavily, cause it seems politicians scared of dodgers more than russians. All that while russian men at least can move abroad and not be scared to leave their house I would say that we are more in 1984 than even ruzzia now, sadly. But yeah, western media do not show our mistakes and abuse of human rights, only when ruzzia do this. So keep living in illusions while my country is being more authoritarian day by day.
A state in times of war becomes authoritarian not by choice.
Wack justification of human rights abuse, constitution abuse, and omnipresent corruption. Ukraine or russia, for me, if country is authoritarian and not respect my rights then it’s a shit country.
If you are going to discuss human rights while bombs are falling on your head, you will lose the war.
I don’t care anymore, as a lot of people, what is the point to die for a country which treats you as a cattle?
“No dumb bastard ever won a war by going out and dying for his country. He won it by making some other dumb bastard die for his country.” General Patton. You are fighting the invader not for the government or the oligarchs, you are fighting for your family and the people you love. Ukraine did not choose this war.
Lol, even your quote suggests that those who dies for countries are idiots, and I agree with that. Thank you for such a motivating speech but I would refuse this honor and would rather emigrate. Maybe someday you will have your chance to fight for your country though. Plus if somebody really cares about family he better find a way to move to a safe place instead of die a stupid death and leave your family without a man. Practicality over stupid cult of “heroism” and big but empty wotds.
With this attitude, Ukraine will lose.
As I said, I don’t care anymore, I despise any authoritarian country, the fact that I was born in Ukraine doesn’t mean I will allow it to treat me like a cattle without free will.
always was, tbh
always has been
I read the headline and thought "1984", do they mean the year or the book ? both of thesre things are mainly true. Outside of the big cities its definitely at best 1984.
REMINDER: THESE PEOPLE ARE **NOT** SUICIDAL
Russia is being held hostage by putin
In Russia, the library reads you
And Europe will follow soon, at least in the mass surveillance department, since boomers don't know how to copy a file to a new folder.
1984 is written so generically that people can compare it to every shitty regime, check out this reply as a good example of that: [https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1d7hd0e/comment/l6ziged/](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1d7hd0e/comment/l6ziged/)
except that orwell by his own admission based it on soviet russia
I said it's written too generically, I didn't say anything about what Orwell meant, I said something about the result he achieved. Admittedly, I'm no fan of his, read both "1984" and "Down And Out" and you could sense the shitty preachiness in both.
Just here for the Russian trolls
not half as much dystopia as I expected
I'd say America takes the throne as 1984.
Lol, but seriously. America is in a very bad shape, but it is far from 1984 and Russia.
Is it? A dumbed down population invaded by mass propaganda coming from all sides turned into nothing but consumers, controled and being slowly killed by corporations. Its not 1984, its worse.
As dumb as average American is - they are geniuses compared to average Russians. Russia got freedom on a plater delivered several times and each time they have choosen terror and slavery over that. It takes a very special kind of culture to allow themselves to be herded so easily.
Judging by the downvotes, im not sure thats true haha
Is that your last defense? "Oh I'm being down voted, everyone except me is dumb" :D
My last defense is your inability to compreehend my comments. Couldn't care less about downvotes.
Haha. Yeah. That's definitely what it looks like.
So ad personam is your defence. How smart.
Kinda fragile are you not?
:D Try harder.
That comment is so edgy I cut myself reading it.
Im sorry, i should have just spit the accepted narrative.
You’re so oppressed! I feel for you.
yes totally the country of free speech and muh rights is more 1984 than the one murdering and silencing everyone who doesn't agree with them
Yes because the usa isn't known for murderingaround the world, either via war, cia meddling or sanctions to destroy the economy (not talking about russia). Putin is a piece of shit, but america is no better.
Yes because the usa isn't known for murderingaround the world, either via war, cia meddling or sanctions to destroy the economy (not talking about russia). Putin is a piece of shit, but america is no better. You clearly havent read capitalism realism, manufacturing consent or one dimensional man, have you?
As a Russian living in the US, this couldn’t be further from the truth. It’s not even close …
Ok then. The only difference between both propagandas is the us is more rampant and spread.
Russia literally outlawed any form of media that speaks critical of the government and in the US we criticize the government left and right
If you read mark fischer, chomsky or marcuse they'll tell you that doesnt mean there isn't a form of censorship in the usa, its just not by force but thru even more insidious brainwashing.
Stop! Just stop with this nonsense! It’s not even close.. the people have a choice whether they buy into the bullshit here, in Russia the people are being force-fed the bullshit under literal threat of imprisonment and what makes it worse, they have to be vocal that the bullshit tastes like honey.
Feel free to ignore my points and keep believing what you already believe. That should tell you something
Always amazed by the 13 year old edgy teenager worthy pseudo-intellectual points made by tankies lol. Marcuse or Fischer names should not even come out of y’all mouths, you do not understand neither of those
You clearly do. That's why your argument is so well put and thought out. Im amazed.
The US did have an orange president that got banned from Twitter.
Twitter is corporation not owned by government, that would be like getting thrown out of a bar because you’re acting like a dick.. which is why they did it! Now try banning Putin in Russia from something, see how well that goes.
USA is fucked up in so many ways, granted. But it can't hold candle to russia. It's whole another league.
How are these posters different from Europe? I see this shit everywhere I go, especially few months leading to elections, which is almost every year.
And somehow they're still better than UK rn, funny